Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko
I appreciate that and stand corrected about your sentiments, but housing prices in Austin are declining in part because there's been such a building boom, and the thing is that because we've already made the big leap to having a higher-capacity mode of transportation--the MAX (imperfect though it is), we have probably the biggest impediment of managing growth out of the way, unlike Austin which can't even manage to get a light rail built, never mind the subway that it really probably needs, in the future if not now.
That's what makes Portland's failure to densely develop around MAX stations so frustrating; one of the hardest parts is already done.
I certainly hope you're right, and I do think that the city's darkest period is behind it, but it's important not to take that for granted. Well-established cities do sometimes end up in near-permanent declines, and while Portland doesn't have the double-edged sword of any one industry dominating its economy (unlike both healthier economies like Seattle, or Rust Belt cities that've been trying to recover for decades), that also means there's less momentum in getting better. |
Seattle has an extremely diverse economy, hence why it is so strong, if that's what you mean.
Actually last week I posted how Portland had the largest job loss in the country last year, and someone here posted it's because a few companies cut workers and those had a big impact on jobs here leading to a net decrease. If true, that's the definition of a local economy lacking diversification. A city this size shouldn't be so dependent on just a few large firms.
Ultimately I bet you would find that overall, people follow jobs and not the other way around. To that end it's all about the economy and jobs. Affordable housing is just a secondary part of that equation. People flock to Texas because of jobs AND affordability. And it's why they don't flock to cheaper Louisiana immediately adjacent. Housing is secondary.
Threaded Mode